By Caren Bohan MEQUON, Wis. (Reuters) - President Bush on Friday blamed al Qaeda supporter Abu Musab al-Zarqawi for beheading American Nicholas Berg and cited him as an example of Saddam Hussein's "terrorist ties" before the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

Bush's revival of accusations linking Saddam to terrorism comes as the president faces growing doubts among Americans over his Iraq policy.

At a fund-raising lunch in Bridgeton, Missouri, Bush said Zarqawi was an example of the threat posed by the ousted Iraqi leader. "We knew he (Saddam) had terrorist ties. The person responsible for the Berg death, Zarqawi, was in and out of Baghdad prior to our arrival, for example," Bush said.

A video of Berg's beheading was posted this week to an Islamist Web site. The grisly film included a statement, signed off with Zarqawi's name, that urged Muslims to take revenge for Iraqi prisoners abused by U.S. soldiers at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison. The CIA on Thursday said Zarqawi was probably the one who beheaded Berg.

American doubts over Bush's Iraq policy have been fueled by the Abu Ghraib scandal, uncertainties over the planned June 30 transfer of sovereignty to Iraqis and a violent insurgency. Furthermore, the United States has failed to find alleged unconventional weapons in Iraq that were the heart of Bush's case for going to war.

Although Bush administration officials had raised the possibility Saddam helped al Qaeda plan the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, Bush eventually said there was no evidence. Bush has previously cited Zarqawi as a link between Saddam and al Qaeda.

The president, in his stops in two battleground states for this November's presidential election, sought to reassure Americans his Iraq policy was on track.

Bush said in Bridgeton the transfer of sovereignty could provide hope for Iraqis, although his administration has been criticized for lacking a clear plan.

"They're glad to be rid of Saddam," he said. "And they obviously want to run their own country. If I were them I'd want to run my own country too."

Speaking later at commencement ceremonies at Concordia University in Wisconsin, Bush said the Abu Ghraib scandal had consequences that WENT "well beyond the walls of a prison," but he did not elaborate.

He said the scandal "cannot diminish the honor and achievement of more than 200,000 military personnel who have served in Iraq."

Before setting off for the Midwest, Bush met at the White House with foreign ministers from the Group of Seven major industrial nations plus Russia. The seven are the United States, Britain, Italy, Canada, France, Germany and Japan.

The theme was mending fences with countries such as France and Germany, which bitterly opposed the war. Bush hopes to enlist their help with the Iraq sovereignty transfer.

"He (Bush) talked about putting aside past differences and all of us working together to help the Iraqi people realize a brighter future," White House spokesman Scott McClellan said. (Additional reporting by David Morgan and Steve Holland)

We know Saddam worked with the PLO and other terrorists, he funded them. He at LEAST knew that 9/11 was coming.

Less than two months before 9/11/01, the state-controlled Iraqi newspaper Al-Nasiriya carried a column headlined, American, an Obsession called Osama Bin Ladin. (July 21, 2001)

In the piece, Baath Party writer Naeem Abd Muhalhal predicted that bin Laden would attack the US with the seriousness of the Bedouin of the desert about the way he will try to bomb the Pentagon after he destroys the White House.

The same state-approved column also insisted that bin Laden will strike America on the arm that is already hurting, and that the US will curse the memory of Frank Sinatra every time he hears his songs  an apparent reference to the Sinatra classic, New York, New York. (Link below) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1106657/posts?page=1

To think, we have millions of pages confiscated from offices all over Iraq we haven't translated yet. There's no telling what we will discover similar to or worse than the Oil for Food scandal. I'm still waiting for the release of names of those who received actual cash rather than oil vouchers. That should be enlightening.

Why do you think the administration had backed away from talking about Saddam and AQ? Even if they didn't or couldn't tie Saddam directly to 9/11, it seems a bad move politically at least to stop talking (until yesterday and this article) about Saddam's links to AQ.

Support for the war is so seriously low and if people only knew what we know (LOL), I think support would increase.

Just speculating, as I'm not near as versed in stratergy as our President, but here goes: Every prominent democrat, up until the start of the war in Iraq, can be quoted condemning Saddam's use and possession of weapons of mass destruction. No one in the mainstream would dare mention these quotes today as they pound the no WMD's line at every possible opportunity. Without concrete, irrefutable evidence of Saddam's involvement in September 11, the media would crucify (i.e. yellowcake/Niger) any claims made by the Bush Administration. I believe they are attempting to put together an unimpeachable dossier implicating Saddam before releasing it to the enemy, er I mean, the press.

EVERY GOP presidential candidate since WWII would have won had only MEN voted. Yes, including Bush I (2nd) and Dole.

EVERY RAT presidential candidate since WWII would have won had only WOMEN voted. Yes, including Carter (2nd), Dukakis and Gore.

The candidacy of Schwarzenegger in rat-infested California was brilliant because it ensured the female vote.

Conservative/Libertarian purists have absolutely no political sense when it comes to winning and keeping elected office.

The most conservative candidate combined with the charisma to win the female vote is the ONLY option for the GOP.

It comes down to this:

The GOP candidate must be more attractive to men yet less offensive to women. In the current instance, Bush is a man's man with enough compassion to win some soccer moms.

The RAT candidate must be more attractive to women yet less offensive to men. In the current instance, Kerry is an effete pompous wimp who men do not like. Women do not find Kerry charismatic.

I think the female vote hinges on two factors:

1. Soccer moms have been displaced by security moms. Bush needs to make females understand their babies will be murdered by terrorists under a Kerry regime.

2. Iraq should ALWAYS have been pursued as a humanitarian issue to keep women voters on side. We ALL would have understood that Iraq was a continuation of the war on terror without saying it. Humanitarian cover would have pre-empted the bleeding heart females' criticism of the war effort no matter how it ended. Stupid move on the part of the political strategists, but certainly not fatal. NOW is the time to pick up this theme constantly and endlessly.

Men will not abandon Bush if we keep sending missiles into terrorist nests, while handing chocolates and flowers to women and children to assuage female guilt.

Bottom line:

With a warning for Bush to keep pounding on the female vulnerability of safety and security, and on our humanitarian successes in Iraq, Bush earns FOUR MORE YEARS!

Please help ensure the Bush team gets the message.

15
posted on 05/15/2004 5:31:35 AM PDT
by Enduring Freedom
(Do not turn cheek to the Islamonazis - you have only one head to be severed. Confront them head on!)

Recently, Kennedy called Iraq Bush's VietNam. That was parrotted by al-Sadr from Iraq.

Yesterday, the Pentagon issued a new directive that 7 forms of 'torture' are not longer allowed.

Food type Sleep deprivation Solitaire for more than 30 days Excessive physical stress for more than 45 minutes

etc.

The Lib/Dems, with the 9-11 Commission attacks, followed by the Iraqi Prison photos, and now changes in interrogation policies, all have the Administration cowering. With each internal attack by the Libs/Dems, the Iraqi War turns more PC; and that feeds the Libs/Dems.

It was reported last week that guards at the prisons have to use rubber bullets. [Note that they guard the worst of the worst--those very much like the butchers of Nick Berg. But our guards have to use rubber bullets while guarding these thugs.]

On a radio talk show recently, a military/political author said that prisoners now can no longer be 'hooded.'

Every day the WoT turns more PC. Every day, Kennedy is more and more right--because his team is aiding and abetting in ensuring that his prophetic statement comes true.

It is difficult to determine whether we are fighting two different enemies or one enemy in two environments. Some of the elected officials seem more bent on our losing the WoT than in our winning it. It makes one wonder why?

We questioned why the UN, France, Russia, and Germany so vehemently opposed our going into Iraq last year. Now, we know why--they were basically 'on the payroll' with their perks from the Oil for Food program.

Dare we investigate those elected officials who seem so bent on derailing our WoT efforts?

16
posted on 05/15/2004 5:41:13 AM PDT
by TomGuy
(Clintonites have such good hind-sight because they had their heads up their hind-ends 8 years.)

Here's how you can tell its a biased article coming. Notice how Ties is in quotes "Ties". Why? Is there some doubt about the "Ties"? Of course not but by doing so the media can continue to undercut the administration's (and in the process the country's) credibility. Notice there are no such quotes by scandal. But at least the media is "unbiased"

Definitely. I loathe the media. They think they can get their guy elected by shaping public opinion. And, unfortunately, they may be right. I had thought by this time FR and other "new media" sites would be more powerful.

I've since changed my mind. The fact that Saddam had such links with AQ is irrefutable and goes back over a decade. Such facts are easily provable.

If President Bush is waiting, he's waited too long (imo). He has lost a lot of support for the war and people are just turned off by it now. He's let the Democrats have the talking points for too long.

If he'd been talking about Saddam's links with OBL right along, Americans would have been cheering every bit of good news for 2 years, instead of ingesting all the bad news from the media and grousing about the war. That kind of optimistic view from Americans would be helping our soldiers and discouraging our enemies.

I'm so discouraged about this because I feel the only way for the president to turn around support for the war in Iraq is to bolster support for it. The only way to bolster support at this point is to find WMD - and I don't think we will as they are elsewhere, Syria for example. So the only other way to bolster support, and it's a truthful way to go about it, is to make Americans understand how Saddam supported terrorism in general and AQ specifically.

Although Bush administration officials had raised the possibility Saddam helped al Qaeda plan the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, Bush eventually said there was no evidence. Bush has previously cited Zarqawi as a link between Saddam and al Qaeda.

The president refers to direct, provable links that Saddam assisted in 9/11.

The administration has consistently upheld indirect and circumstantial links. This statement by the President verifies that.

23
posted on 05/15/2004 6:11:53 AM PDT
by xzins
(Retired Army and Proud of It!)

If President Bush is waiting, he's waited too long (imo). He has lost a lot of support for the war and people are just turned off by it now. He's let the Democrats have the talking points for too long.

The Bush Admin has always seemd too slow to react to situations. It allows the Dems to gain political points.

Clinton had his people on-air and in front of cameras even before the bad news hit the wires. Thus, he managed to spin it before it could become an issue [in most cases].

The Prison photos scandal could have been quelled on day 1, if GWB/Rumsfeld had issued a statement that investigations started in January, only a 1/2 dozen are involved, arrest have been made, etc. But the Admin's PR team have allowed this molehill to fester for 2 weeks now and become an infected puss blister. Democrats refer to it as their 'silver bullet.'

The same is true with the Iraq War. GWB is now losing it on the PR front. Kennedy and Co are making it another VietNam. Where are the GWB people out EVERY DAY telling the good that is being done?

If GWB can't get out in front of these kinds of 'problems,' [and you can bet the Dems have more 'situations' lined up to hit the Admin with in the coming weeks], we could very possibly see a President Kerry-Annan in January.

26
posted on 05/15/2004 6:21:00 AM PDT
by TomGuy
(Clintonites have such good hind-sight because they had their heads up their hind-ends 8 years.)

WMD was the ultimate nightmare scenario after 9-11. The Bush team totally believed that. We saw the enemy go for mass kills. Don't forget how many thousands ESCAPED the WTC. All were meant to die.

We KNEW Saddam had capability to kill even more massively if left alone to do it. We knew he had terror links, if not 9-11 itself. I recall team Bush stressing the fear of WMD going from Saddam to terrorists to hit us. Also the U.N. was wimping out & we used a WMD rationale on them.

Using simply "terrorist links", back then, was dicey, IMO. Look how many other regimes that fit!

Now, it makes more sense to show Iraq as riddled with terrorists, and from years ago until now. It is a fact, & a threat, no matter where the WMD went. They kill our soldiers, decent Iraqis, Coalition forces, contractors, diplomats... the list goes on. Nick Berg shows they want to behead ALL OF US.

Their weapon was a knife, not WMD. We must adjust to it, Peach, by our use of rhetoric.

I think Quilla is correct ....the campaign in most of America is just now starting ...You wait till you see the whites of their eyes, before you unload the ammunition.

Monsoor Ijaz was recently quoted as saying those who think there is no connection between Iraq nd AlQaeda are simply wrong... A lot of Americans believe that..Its the media and the left that are obsessed with the idea that "Bush lied" about this.

I tried to post this article last night and the web site was having problems. I saw it at DU where those people were having a fit about it. If Bush can make the case that he was right to have gone into Iraq because it is the key in the WoT he will win.

I know the administration has to get through the liberal filter in the media, but surely when we have the House, Senate and Executive Branch, press conferences could be held that more clearly state our case.

That is my major disappointment with the administration - on the PR front they have not done as good a job as freepers could do! LOL

Conservative/Libertarian purists have absolutely no political sense when it comes to winning and keeping elected office.

Agreed. But then, why would "winning" be important if the resulting government expanded socialism and international meddling at a rate far greater than the Demons would have done?

The nice thing about being a constitutionalist is understanding that freedom is derived from within, not something conferred upon you by government.

True freedom is having the clarity of thought not to invest yourself emotionally in the outcome of an election. You will never find authenticity in your life by transferring your hopes and dreams to others who are likely more corrupted by power than you are.

This is not a sporting event. We're talking about the future of human civilization here, and you folks all rally around your candidate based on party affiliation without regard for right or wrong.

Myself, I already feel like the cartoon character Pogo, who uttered the famous line "We have met the enemy and he is us."

thanks, I was roaming thru the former list...sure wish there was a charismatic, spirited GOP guy who is ready to go out and start swinging...who from the 2000 elections aftermath could we nominate to start rousing the Right Rabble?

I realize that continued American support for the war in Iraq is important. Keeping my support is a moot point as my friends, my family, and I support our military's fight wholeheartedly. Consider how the American public is inundated with propaganda from the pointedly leftist media - hit with a 24/7 barrage of anti-war comments and commentary - it is amazing that support is as high as it is. On rare occasions, the President will succumb to some of these attacks, issue an apology or explanation, and still the barrage continues from the left, and the right attacks him for even addressing the issue in the first place.

President Bush, as you know, does not dictate policy as a result of polling data. We are fighting a war on two fronts (with a military greatly diminished by Clinton/Gore), hunting the murderers of 3000 Americans, maintaining relationships with our allies, learning just who are not our allies, dealing with an ineffective and corrupt UN, protecting our homeland (and thwarting unknown numbers of terrorist attacks), searching for weapons of mass destruction, dealing with domestic issues (education, abortion, gay marriage, etc.), and campaigning for re-election. IMHO, this administration has a incredibly full plate and is operating admirably. I can only hope and pray that a majority of Americans realize this in November.

I can understand that you'd be afraid Bush has waited too long ...we have been arguing this since the war started..but remember Kerry is still the "presumptive" nominee. I think Bush has been really smart by holding his card tight to his vest

Any person that thinks anti-American sentiment is isolated to one group while there are millions of anti-Americans around the world is very naive. They have the unifying force of their convictions in a world with modern transportation and communications.

But the left, the media and the RAT candidates, Reps and Sinators all say there is no evidence of any ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam. They also say endlessly that this is Bush's war and there were no WMDs. Could they be wrong? Are they ever right?

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.